General Climate Discussion

[AKH]

Originally posted by lazs2
akh... I find it telling that even your sig line is dishonest.  

You and I both know that I said it to crock-it when he was on the verge of a nervous breakdown because I simply wouldn't "feel" the fact of MMGW and how unfair it was that I was bringing data into the whole thing.

Let's have a look at what you said in more detail then:

Don't do the research and you won't be unhappy like hortlund.

Let's start by getting rid of the double negatives, since they always seem to confuse the issue.

"Do the research and you will be unhappy like hortlund."  So, we have a statement regarding cause and effect: if you research the topic, you will end up unhappy, just like Hortlund.  Hmmm.

I don't think Hortlund is unhappy; I believe that he is frustrated and is expressing that frustration. So why is he frustrated?  Well, as you say, he has done his research and has a fairly good understanding of the topic for a layman.  He then ends up in a "debate" with someone who makes use of every single dishonest trick he can.  I can understand his frustration.

So your advice to crockett (I have to admire your creative use of name based ad-hominems) is to avoid the angst of having to argue with you (for he will surely lose) by ensuring that he has no knowledge of the subject. Interesting.  I could paraphrase that with "Ignorance is Bliss."  Yeah.  That sounds like good advice for anyone.

So, I don't believe the quote is dishonest.  In fact, I think that it speaks volumes about you.  I certainly don't find it any more dishonest than:

ITS THE SUN STUPID

I would say you are in the same boat.. sooo.. I will give you some more sig material...  for you... If you don't want your religion shaken then don't debate people who might have looked into it and found it wanting.

What can I say other than

[Angus]

Lazs:
"Don't do the research and you won't be unhappy like hortlund."

Okay, so does that mean that you are against research, because you are afraid of what you may find out?
While in this case the "finding" is something that is happening, this attitude expresses fear. So you are afraid that what some of us are promoting is true. You want us to be wrong so bad, that you go to any length to convince yourself. On the flipside, well for my behalf, I hope you are right. It would be better. But anything I look into brings me further into the same conclusion.
Now this is well known, and analyzed through human history. Let's leave it open for anybody to find a historical parallell.
In a military term you would describe this as anything between "lack of sense of realism", "lack of situation awareness", or as far as dumbness or cowardice. Or an amalgam of the above.
In the animal world, this can simply be described with being an Ostridge. Or perhaps a Lemming

[lazs2]

well.. I would say that hortlunds outbursts whenever I link to a site that proves my point would be good indication that doing the research makes him unhappy..

simple really... don't make too much of it.

angus... if they all believe it is man made... what do they think we are doing that is causing the warming and what do they suggest we do about it?

Did you suggest putting out the coal fires.. that always gets the MMGW shills I know stuttering.

Did you ask em if they thought it was gonna continue for another century?

lazs

[Angus]

Simple Lazs.
CO2 as well as deforestation and other factors, - human footprint big enough to create a diversion in the weather system.
And what we do about it. Well, since we can't go on for long as we do, we must realize and react. We will have to work on any possible way not to squander our energy resources as we do. This goes all the way from big stuff down to the small stuff.
Even you can point out where we burn a lot for very little.


And as for the coal fires, I am still figuring out how to explain to you how a tiny amount of oxygen can together with it's half of Carbon, create massive co2.

Shouldn't matter much to you anyway, for AFAIK you don't belive in any link between co2 and GW.

[lazs2]

angus..  you are not telling me what you want us to do.  If you were king of the world... name ten things that you would order the people to do to combat this horror of horrors.... MMGW!!  what is your plan your excelence?

the coal fires.. read the sites.. read your precious wiki.

and..  what do I care?   I don't really as I don't think c02 is doing diddly other than making crops grow better.  but...  I was playing devils advocate... if c02 is as important to you as you say... it would seem that simply putting out the fires would do more than anything else suggested (did you acolytes ever even suggest ANYTHING?)...

lazs

[AKH]

Originally posted by lazs2
I don't think c02 is doing diddly

More sig material, already?

I was playing devils advocate...

ROFL

If you read it one way then ALL the fires in china are more than all of mans co2 contribution "According to this Coal Fire website. The highest estimate is 2% to 3% of global Fossil Fuel Co2 emissions are from the China coal fires."

either way... the coal fires in all the world are somewhere between as much as all of mans contribution to co2 to many times more our contribution.

Would you explain how you reached this conclusion?

[Angus]

I would begin #1 with a mandatory question.
DO YOU WANT TO SEE A HUMAN RACE ABOVE CAVEMAN LEVEL IN 300 YEARS.

Yes or no would determin the other #9




BTW Lazs, I actually think we are together on one point that has nothing to do with GW, but general politics, and that one goes into the pot of critizism.
Ok, I'll try a thesis;

 A case of critizism on important issues is light in weight if no (better) alternatives are pointed out.

?

[Angus]

Oh, Lazs, AFAIK, crops are going downhill, and Top-oil is behind us. In the meantime mankind is growing. So, Imagine that graphwise.
It is wise, if driving full speed towards an abyss, to check breaks and alternative routes and speeds I think....

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Angus
The oldest cores of Ice found (and they won't get any older, for that ice is already gone) are some 600.000 years old Holden.
120.000 years are way in the caveman business anyway.
And do you then prefere to belive that since the cores in Greenland are only that old because you cannot find any older ice? Do you have any idea of the "prints" that advancing and retreating Ice leaves in the landscape?
Anyway, they're leaving.
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850#Greenland
Not sure if the 20 mi number comes from "Icecap at all", since the planet sometimes roll around a little, but here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_packs

"The Arctic Sea has not been ice free for a period of at least one million years, and probably much longer"

That belongs to the Arctic where it is.

Here they go down to 40 million years, as a notch to the cooling period starting, but hell didn't freeze over in a day...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_history

"On longer time scales, sediment cores show that the cycles of glacials and interglacials are part of a deepening phase within a prolonged ice age that began with the glaciation of Antarctica approximately 40 million years ago. This deepening phase, and the accompanying cycles, largely began approximately 3 million years ago with the growth of continental ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere."

So we don't know of the sea ice, but there was continental ice in sheets.

To cut a long story short, the Northern sea-ice is leaving, FAST. Something that has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions decides to turn to water in a span of less than 100. In the meantime there is a bunch of people saying that it ain't happening.

Our melting speed is actually less than a promille of the time manifested as an absolute minimum BTW, just to get the proportions right.

Angus... I'm with you my friend...but please find another reference than wiki.  It is a user run interface and its content changes by the moment; it is not a terribly good place to quote from.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
well.. I would say that hortlunds outbursts whenever I link to a site that proves my point would be good indication that doing the research makes him unhappy..

simple really... don't make too much of it.

angus... if they all believe it is man made... what do they think we are doing that is causing the warming and what do they suggest we do about it?

Did you suggest putting out the coal fires.. that always gets the MMGW shills I know stuttering.

Did you ask em if they thought it was gonna continue for another century?

lazs

The problem with your links is this laz.... they are all completely biased to disproving AGW.  Junkscience.com?  Cmon bro.  When you start posting papers found in "Nature" or "Bioscience" or other scientific journals... I'll take notice of your rantings.  Those journals are "peer reviewed"...and if you don't know why that is a big deal, then I'm talking to a moron.

One more post with coal fires from you.... and I might find a grassy knoll around your house....Damn if you aren't persistent with your BS.

[Angus]

Hehe, Moray, I know. But Wiki is fast, and easy when you already have the numbers in your head. And I belive I was rather right there
Britannica requires subscription right?
As a sidenote, just got D.A.'s "Planet Earth" series on DVD. Can't wait to watch. Going to be one heck of a job to quote that though

[Angus]

BTW, a little news update.
In Spitzbergen they have been measuring the permafrost, from the depth of 30 and down to 60 metres.
The cave a raise of 0.19 deg Celcius in the last six years, which is considered quite much. Higher above the temp raise in the ice is up to .7 degs Celcius which is considered quite much as well.
Note that the ice is still not melting, just getting nearer to that point.
The upper surface of the iceblock is at 2m depth in the summer in the location of measurement, the temp there last year was 1.8 degs above the years before. The atmospheric temp last winter was however whooping, - 8,2 degs above normal.
Linkie to icelandic translation with graph.
http://esv.blog.is/blog/esv/#entry-362346
Linkie to the Norwegian page:
http://www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext/index.aspx?id=5773
English translation to the Cicero homepage:
http://www.cicero.uio.no/Home/index_e.aspx

No Wikipedia this time

[Jackal1]

I need a dedicated forecast for next week.

[Angus]

Okay. give location, and atm. conditions, mail me a SAT pic as well as data from the surroundings, and I'll make a try

You know, in the autumn of 1944, there was a Nazi-collapse forecast. However, you could not say where exactly and when, and what the conditions were going to be like, but it would BE.
And it turned out

In June 1944, the most important weather forecast of all times was made, and it was a couple-of day forecast for a relatively difficult area.
It turned out on spot:D

[Angus]

To add on this, - it was forecasted that sea ice melting would increase as well as permafrost would start to retreat in the N-Hemisphere.
Turned out just so. Creepy, isn't it...